No game can offer complete freedom. But Fallout offers a great deal, especially in comparison to Oblivion.krysalist said:
The new fallout game, why the eltism of hate?
- Thread starter Gormless
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I find the elitist gaming phenomenon so odd -- since when does consumption of a particular entertainment product make you better than other people who consume different products? What is the philosophical basis for that?
Computer games are a popular form to pass the time. Isn't that enough?
For everybody bagging Bethesda for daring to make a new game -- there's an online project to make an open Fallout game engine... which didn't get very far last time I checked. Maybe the people who want the old Fallout with a new quest should just do some work for the free game?
Just a thought.
=====
P.S. Gormless - Guess you slipped through the cracks of your country's educational system... class is in session:
"So kicking around the interwebs for a bit, I've sensed a lot of aggro for the new fallout and I cant really see why. Seriously, I truly doubt that anybody can give me a rational argument against it that isn't based on elitism, fear or nostalgia.
God, I hate elitism. Yes, I've played the Fallouts when they first came out - I even took a swipe at Wasteland about a decade ago after playing Fallout but do i want a sodding medal?
Fear -- could Bethesda do any worse than Interplay did towards the end. Did anyone else play that godawful console game?
Nostalgia -- people, things have to move with the times. Have you played Fallout 1 recently? It's still an amazing game but it IS dated.
As far as I've seen, Bethesda seem to be getting the setting and feeling of the Fallout games, and that, to me, IS Fallout. Not the combat. Not the viewpoint.
So to finish, I personally will remain optimistic about Bethesda's Fallout unless truly compelling evidence to the contrary is produced."
===============
Basically, to improve your writing, work on four things:
1) Spelling and punctuation (Try Mozilla Firefox for automatic spellcheck while you type)
2) Don't write your entire post as a single lump. Split it up into smaller paragraphs, each focused on a single idea.
3) Names of things should be capitalized, e.g. Bethesda, Fallout
4) Push the Preview button and read what you have written. Because editor windows are made so damn small, it is difficult to spot mistakes while you are editing your post. The preview is much easier to read.
Putting aside technical writing ability for a moment, you presented a well-reasoned argument.
I look forward to your next post!
Marco
3)
Computer games are a popular form to pass the time. Isn't that enough?
For everybody bagging Bethesda for daring to make a new game -- there's an online project to make an open Fallout game engine... which didn't get very far last time I checked. Maybe the people who want the old Fallout with a new quest should just do some work for the free game?
Just a thought.
=====
P.S. Gormless - Guess you slipped through the cracks of your country's educational system... class is in session:
"So kicking around the interwebs for a bit, I've sensed a lot of aggro for the new fallout and I cant really see why. Seriously, I truly doubt that anybody can give me a rational argument against it that isn't based on elitism, fear or nostalgia.
God, I hate elitism. Yes, I've played the Fallouts when they first came out - I even took a swipe at Wasteland about a decade ago after playing Fallout but do i want a sodding medal?
Fear -- could Bethesda do any worse than Interplay did towards the end. Did anyone else play that godawful console game?
Nostalgia -- people, things have to move with the times. Have you played Fallout 1 recently? It's still an amazing game but it IS dated.
As far as I've seen, Bethesda seem to be getting the setting and feeling of the Fallout games, and that, to me, IS Fallout. Not the combat. Not the viewpoint.
So to finish, I personally will remain optimistic about Bethesda's Fallout unless truly compelling evidence to the contrary is produced."
===============
Basically, to improve your writing, work on four things:
1) Spelling and punctuation (Try Mozilla Firefox for automatic spellcheck while you type)
2) Don't write your entire post as a single lump. Split it up into smaller paragraphs, each focused on a single idea.
3) Names of things should be capitalized, e.g. Bethesda, Fallout
4) Push the Preview button and read what you have written. Because editor windows are made so damn small, it is difficult to spot mistakes while you are editing your post. The preview is much easier to read.
Putting aside technical writing ability for a moment, you presented a well-reasoned argument.
I look forward to your next post!
Marco
3)
I also disagree with people who say Fallout has to be isometric and turn-based... and agree that the setting and feeling is more important. But I already see problems coming up with both of those. For one thing, anyone who's played the hell out of Fallout 2 knows very well what the vaults were meant to do, and what we do know about Fallout 3's story made me raise an eyebrow when I thought of this. It's a second Vault 13? What? Also, why is the Brotherhood of Steel, which should be on the edge of extinction and still in California, in DC (please note that Fallout Tactics is not canon... it never happened as far as Fallout 3 is concerned)? It makes little sense. Why aren't the super mutants in Fallout 3 mostly senile and/or just tired of fighting, like most of them were in Fallout 2? I don't have high hopes for a totally faithful setting.krysalist said:
Furthermore, they don't seem to be getting the feeling down, either. If it feels like Oblivion, it doesn't feel like Fallout, for the reasons I've already mentioned. Fallout offers lots of freedom... layers of it. Oblivion's 'freedom' is more like a house of mirrors. It doesn't matter if I'm in a retrofuturistic, bombed-out, mutant-infested city... if I have to play it THEIR way... I can't imagine it will feel like Fallout.
EDITED for spelling and grammar.
From what I know about Fallout 1 & 2 story compared to what I know about the Fallout 3 story, Fallout 3 actually seems like it should be renamed Death Lands or Outlanders (http://www.jamesaxler.com/), because that is what it reminds me of, not the games' stories I have played previously.
But will I dislike Fallout 3? I don't know, I haven't played it yet. *shrug*
But will I dislike Fallout 3? I don't know, I haven't played it yet. *shrug*
If you like Oblivion, at this point it's safe to say you'll probably like Fallout.CanadianWolverine said:
The version of fallout that comes with the collection has been adapted for windows and runs fine on my computer. It does occasionally black the screen out, but 'wiping' the screen with your mouse sorts that out fine. And I'm normally not that much a sucker for graphics, I play megadrive and snes games all the time, but Fallout is just butt-ugly. I think it must have been butt-ugly when it came out too.ComradeJim270 said:
I've played the game a bit more and am really starting to get into it, but it's still hideous.
I've never once found myself thinking that, and just can't wrap my mind around the idea that Fallout is 'ugly'. Whatever. Glad to hear you're enjoying it, though, it's loved for a reason.Strafe Mcgee said:
I'm a huge Fallout fan, and I have plenty of reservations about Fallout 3, but the things people complain about it on the NMA forums (or the RPG Codex *shudder*) make me cringe. When the first screenshots were released the most common complaints went like this:
"OMG the vault suit isn't SKINTIGHT!!!!!!111 this wile be teh worst game evarzzz!!!!"
Seriously. Most of their other complaints amount to similar nitpicks.
"OMG the vault suit isn't SKINTIGHT!!!!!!111 this wile be teh worst game evarzzz!!!!"
Seriously. Most of their other complaints amount to similar nitpicks.
I know... while the RPG Codex guys are at least funny sometimes... all of those people are hurting their own cause with their crap, making all Fallout fans seem like nutjobs.Grampy_bone said:
EDIT: You should get a Sulik avatar.
This is my problem, ComradeJim270. I have no problem with people and their own reservations about the game. My problem begins when people start screaming about how they'll never ever ever like the game for whatever spurious reason they've come up with, spurious because it always speaks to a deviation in the design from the late 90's classics.
Those games are essential for anyone with a love of post-apocalyptic settings and story-driven RPGs. And now, almost a decade later, and with a new game on the way, they've decided to completely, blindly even, hate away at it for ad hominem reasons that seem nothing more than a cry for attention, saying, "We played the original game. These things are no longer in it. It's going to be terrible, no doubt!"
It just reads as silly to me. But then I realize that my concern is simply for the continuation of the story-based format for Fallout (as opposed to the tactical games). And Bethesda will do that, ad ad ad nauseum nauseum nauseum. And I couldn't be more thankful for that.
We all know this game is probably not going to be similar in game play to the original series because of the style of games bethesda makes (obviously,) and because they announced it as a shooter-RPG. but why be mad? I applaud Bethesda for reviving the old series. Bethesda deserves our admiration, not our hate. They may make a fugly games that is truely a piece of rubbish, but even so if that happens they deserve our respect for deciding to go out there and revive the greatest series in many of our eyes. and also, I reccomend playing STALKER if you would like a glimpse of a possible outcome for game design.
Let me put it this way... do you think Dr. Frankenstein would get the hatred or the applause of the family of the dead man he reanimated? Hm, I don't think they'd ever know, but that's beside the point.Portoparty said:
I LOVE STALKER, but it's not what Fallout 3 should be. To be honest, I would be much less upset if they called it something else. "Fallout: DC" or something... but they won't make something worthy of "Fallout 3", and I don't think they even can.
Yes, you could. You could side with the mutants in Fallout 1 and they would drop you into a vat of FEV and you would then go and kill the overseer of Vault 13.krysalist said:
As for the rest: Bethesda's most recent game was Oblivion, which had very little dialogue, about 5 voice actors and only 1 path through the game (Go here kill this). Their 2nd most recent game, Morrowind, had alot of dialogue but still only 1 path through the game (Go here kill this).
The beauty of Fallout was that you could be a pacifist throughout the entire game, never needing to kill anyone. You could kill everyone in the game though, which sometimes resulted in perks (Go wipe out Vault City sometime).
The Brotherhood of Steel was on the verge of extinction after their war with the Enclave, they may have recovered but due to their isolationist attitude, probably didnt.
The start of the game sounds like the start of F1 and F2 (Thrown out of the vault to go do something).
Overall, the beauty of Fallout was that you could do things in a variety of ways (Diplomatic, stealth, Rambo). Bethesda hasn't been able to do anything like that.
My problem with Bethesda doing something like Fallout is that it is totally not their style of game. They like to create vast, pretty worlds where you can be a green lizard doing some thing or another and suddenly the urge comes upon you to become a theif and steal the elder scroll from the 3 incompetent guards charged with protecting the most important thing in the universe. Everything is possible with only one character. Strange as it may sound, but there are not enough limitations in their games. Then again (SPOILER), when the dark brotherhood decided to kill my good informer friend late in the quest series, I wanted to slaughter all their asses on the spot. But nooooo, the just go unconcious after recieveing several arrows to the face, getting up moments later with amnesia of how this giant wooden intrusion came to be. This kind of thing had better not become a habit of Bethesda's.
In fallout you could have killed those self righteous, conclusion jumping bastards.
In fallout you could have killed those self righteous, conclusion jumping bastards.
I would still mind, but not as mach. Part of the reason is that "Fallout 3" means they are actually trying to make a game like Fallout 2, and like Fallout. If they called it something else, well... we've had shitty games with Fallout in the title before, that's nothing new.Gormless said:You wouldn't mind it as FalloutComradeJim270 said:C but a 3 instead makes it a totally different bag? How exactly?
You couldn't kill the Overseer except at the end. Ever tried it? It's funny. "You were critically hit for 6027 damage."Anniko said:
It's possible, but in theory, logic would predict that roleplaying should be a lot more immersive by taking on a first-person perspective so that you actually see through the eyes of your character, but for some reason, it takes out the fun for me. I think mainly because it reduces combat to action-based, and because I have no sense of direction, meaning that I often get hopelessly lost unless I'm looking down and just pointing to where I want to go. If Fallout 3 had been made with a similar engine to Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate, I'd be tickled pink. I don't specifically need turn-based action, but something about turn-based RPGs just don't do it for me. Maybe it'll be different with Fallout, since I do enjoy first-person perspective for shooting games, and I liked Bioshock from what little I got to play of it, but once you throw in a full-fledged RPG into the formula, we'll see how things play out. It could go either way, as I see it. I admit that I was one of those people who were initially outraged by Metroid Prime's jump from 2D side-scroller to FPS, and although I still do prefer a good 2D side-scroller, Metroid Prime has certainly taught us that a game and premise can still lend itself well to different engines.L.B. Jeffries said: